Ben Foster caught on the ball

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 > Last >>

hastingseagle67 03 Dec 17 12.00am
Thought it at the time, and seen it again on motd, should we not have had an indirect free kick. I thought that a goalkeeper cannot use his hands on a back pass, and from what I could see, he pushed it away whilst on the floor, without anyone else touching it after the initial backpass. Do I misunderstand this ruling ? has resisted writing a single post on the Ross McCormack thread !!!
Alert a moderator to this post

hastingseagle67

03 Dec 17 12.00am

Send a Private Message to hastingseagle67

Thought it at the time, and seen it again on motd, should we not have had an indirect free kick. I thought that a goalkeeper cannot use his hands on a back pass, and from what I could see, he pushed it away whilst on the floor, without anyone else touching it after the initial backpass. Do I misunderstand this ruling ?

has resisted writing a single post on the Ross McCormack thread !!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Hubbo Near a team called Palace 03 Dec 17 12.02am
Indirect free kick in the area
Alert a moderator to this post

Hubbo

Near a team called Palace 03 Dec 17 12.02am

Indirect free kick in the area

Alert a moderator to this post

hastingseagle67 03 Dec 17 12.04am
Didn’t get one has resisted writing a single post on the Ross McCormack thread !!!
Alert a moderator to this post

hastingseagle67

03 Dec 17 12.04am

Didn’t get one

has resisted writing a single post on the Ross McCormack thread !!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse Hastings 03 Dec 17 12.06am
Ref clearly doesn't know the ruling. Blatantly played the ball with his hand as it looked like Wilf might nick it away. Therefore indirect free kick and a yellow. Once more a referee bottling a decision, it's got to epidemic proportions now. That's Life And as funny as it may seem Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream. KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse

Hastings 03 Dec 17 12.06am

Ref clearly doesn't know the ruling. Blatantly played the ball with his hand as it looked like Wilf might nick it away. Therefore indirect free kick and a yellow. Once more a referee bottling a decision, it's got to epidemic proportions now.

That's Life
And as funny as it may seem
Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream.
KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret 03 Dec 17 12.07am
I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this. The spirit of this rule (within Law 12) is to prevent timewasting by goalkeepers handling the ball when they are not under pressure, not to stop them doing what they normally do. Foster did not waste time by handling the ball, he handled it to get it away from the opponent (although the mess he was in was his own fault). As to the letter of the law, it says this: "The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence: The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper, This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)" Now I don't think Wilf touched the ball between the back pass and the handling, but Foster didn't try to handle the ball before he was put under pressure by Wilf and he only did so because Wilf challenged him for it. Technically, we should have had an indirect free kick, but I guess refs don't apply it other than in the spirit in which the law was intended. Personally I think the issue would have been better dealt with as it used to be, i.e. you book the keeper for timewasting if that's what he's doing. Didn't it used to be the case that a keeper could only take x steps with the ball in his hands? Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.15am) ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

03 Dec 17 12.07am

I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this.

The spirit of this rule (within Law 12) is to prevent timewasting by goalkeepers handling the ball when they are not under pressure, not to stop them doing what they normally do. Foster did not waste time by handling the ball, he handled it to get it away from the opponent (although the mess he was in was his own fault).

As to the letter of the law, it says this:

"The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:

The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and
The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)"

Now I don't think Wilf touched the ball between the back pass and the handling, but Foster didn't try to handle the ball before he was put under pressure by Wilf and he only did so because Wilf challenged him for it.

Technically, we should have had an indirect free kick, but I guess refs don't apply it other than in the spirit in which the law was intended. Personally I think the issue would have been better dealt with as it used to be, i.e. you book the keeper for timewasting if that's what he's doing.

Didn't it used to be the case that a keeper could only take x steps with the ball in his hands?

Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.15am)

============
The Ferret
============

Alert a moderator to this post

Hubbo Near a team called Palace 03 Dec 17 12.12am
All that said, the ref performance today was far from the worst we’ve had this year....or is that because we were not playing one of the “big six”?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hubbo

Near a team called Palace 03 Dec 17 12.12am

All that said, the ref performance today was far from the worst we’ve had this year....or is that because we were not playing one of the “big six”?

Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse Hastings 03 Dec 17 12.13am
Originally posted by chateauferret I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this. The spirit of this rule (within Law 12) is to prevent timewasting by goalkeepers handling the ball when they are not under pressure, not to stop them doing what they normally do. Foster did not waste time by handling the ball. As to the letter of the law, it says this: "The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence: The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper, This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)" Now I don't think Wilf touched the ball between the back pass and the handling, but Foster didn't try to handle the ball before he was put under pressure by Wilf and he only did so because Wilf challenged him for it. Technically, you could argue that the three events occurred as listed above, if you agree that Wilf didn't touch the ball. But I would have been quite pi**ed off if it were given against us because the rule is meant to deal with quite a different situation. Come on ferret you know at the other end it's a penalty and a red card for Jules. That's Life And as funny as it may seem Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream. KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse

Hastings 03 Dec 17 12.13am

Originally posted by chateauferret

I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this.

As to the letter of the law, it says this:

"The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:

Technically, you could argue that the three events occurred as listed above, if you agree that Wilf didn't touch the ball.

But I would have been quite pi**ed off if it were given against us because the rule is meant to deal with quite a different situation.

Come on ferret you know at the other end it's a penalty and a red card for Jules.

That's Life
And as funny as it may seem
Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream.
KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret 03 Dec 17 12.17am
Originally posted by Dangermouse Come on ferret you know at the other end it's a penalty and a red card for Jules. That is a quite different issue: did the keeper foul Zaha whilst he was doing what he was doing? If he did, it is a penalty and the other issues are moot. I couldn't convince myself that he did, but then look at the one that Seaweed got given today... If it had happened at the other end the ref might have given a penalty, but that would have nothing to do with handling the ball. I think the double-jeopardy rule would prevent a red card because the keeper was quite clearly attempting to play the ball. I've edited my previous post on the basis that technically it was an infringement of Law 12 but one that doesn't reflect the spirit of the rule. Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.18am) Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.20am) ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

03 Dec 17 12.17am

Originally posted by Dangermouse

Come on ferret you know at the other end it's a penalty and a red card for Jules.

That is a quite different issue: did the keeper foul Zaha whilst he was doing what he was doing? If he did, it is a penalty and the other issues are moot. I couldn't convince myself that he did, but then look at the one that Seaweed got given today... If it had happened at the other end the ref might have given a penalty, but that would have nothing to do with handling the ball.

I think the double-jeopardy rule would prevent a red card because the keeper was quite clearly attempting to play the ball.

I've edited my previous post on the basis that technically it was an infringement of Law 12 but one that doesn't reflect the spirit of the rule.

Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.18am)

Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.20am)

============
The Ferret
============

Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin 03 Dec 17 8.00am
Just seen it - would have been a harsh penalty and if given against us there would have been uproar
Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin

03 Dec 17 8.00am

Just seen it - would have been a harsh penalty and if given against us there would have been uproar

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 03 Dec 17 8.19am
Originally posted by chateauferret I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this. The spirit of this rule (within Law 12) is to prevent timewasting by goalkeepers handling the ball when they are not under pressure, not to stop them doing what they normally do. Foster did not waste time by handling the ball, he handled it to get it away from the opponent (although the mess he was in was his own fault). As to the letter of the law, it says this: "The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence: The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper, This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)" Now I don't think Wilf touched the ball between the back pass and the handling, but Foster didn't try to handle the ball before he was put under pressure by Wilf and he only did so because Wilf challenged him for it. Technically, we should have had an indirect free kick, but I guess refs don't apply it other than in the spirit in which the law was intended. Personally I think the issue would have been better dealt with as it used to be, i.e. you book the keeper for timewasting if that's what he's doing. Didn't it used to be the case that a keeper could only take x steps with the ball in his hands? Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.15am) Four steps it was, once the goalie had the ball in his hands. Trouble is, there was no rule about multiple passes between goalie and outfield players Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 03 Dec 17 8.19am

Originally posted by chateauferret

I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this.

As to the letter of the law, it says this:

"The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:

Didn't it used to be the case that a keeper could only take x steps with the ball in his hands?

Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.15am)

Four steps it was, once the goalie had the ball in his hands. Trouble is, there was no rule about multiple passes between goalie and outfield players

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

ta11berg birmingham 03 Dec 17 9.21am
I was sitting immediately behind that goal with the baggies fans, and had no doubt it was a penalty, and nor did they. It went very quiet and the abuse of Zaha paused significantly. He was fouled by Foster with an open goal in front of him,was my impression,I have not seen the replays. It seems the ref was equally unpopular at my end of the ground. Incidentally sitting with the home support gave you a very good feel about how well we played and our possession was a delight
Alert a moderator to this post

ta11berg

birmingham 03 Dec 17 9.21am

I was sitting immediately behind that goal with the baggies fans, and had no doubt it was a penalty, and nor did they. It went very quiet and the abuse of Zaha paused significantly. He was fouled by Foster with an open goal in front of him,was my impression,I have not seen the replays. It seems the ref was equally unpopular at my end of the ground. Incidentally sitting with the home support gave you a very good feel about how well we played and our possession was a delight

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops CR3 03 Dec 17 11.02am
Originally posted by chateauferret I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this. The spirit of this rule (within Law 12) is to prevent timewasting by goalkeepers handling the ball when they are not under pressure, not to stop them doing what they normally do. Foster did not waste time by handling the ball, he handled it to get it away from the opponent (although the mess he was in was his own fault). As to the letter of the law, it says this: "The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence: The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper, This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)" Now I don't think Wilf touched the ball between the back pass and the handling, but Foster didn't try to handle the ball before he was put under pressure by Wilf and he only did so because Wilf challenged him for it. Technically, we should have had an indirect free kick, but I guess refs don't apply it other than in the spirit in which the law was intended. Personally I think the issue would have been better dealt with as it used to be, i.e. you book the keeper for timewasting if that's what he's doing. Didn't it used to be the case that a keeper could only take x steps with the ball in his hands? Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.15am) Ferret, whilst I understand the sentiment of your point, nowhere in the rules of the game does it say that the ref has the right to ignore an infringement in the circumstances that occurred. The ball was a back pass, which the keeper could have cleared, but didn't. Instead he chose to try and dribble out and only when he got in trouble did he go to ground and handle it. All 3 criteria for awarding the indirect free kick were met and he simply chose to ignore it which is wrong. If we were to follow your line of thinking to every scenario when a keeper gets in trouble then there would be no indirect free kicks for keepers who pick the ball up, which would make the law an arse. Sorry, but this is just another case of a ref making a poor decision in a dangerous area of the field and he shouldn't be vilified for making up his own interpretation of the laws. Unless of course it was just straightforward incompetence and he actually missed what was going on!
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 03 Dec 17 11.02am

Originally posted by chateauferret

I think we would have been lucky to be awarded this.

As to the letter of the law, it says this:

"The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:

Didn't it used to be the case that a keeper could only take x steps with the ball in his hands?

Edited by chateauferret (03 Dec 2017 12.15am)

Ferret, whilst I understand the sentiment of your point, nowhere in the rules of the game does it say that the ref has the right to ignore an infringement in the circumstances that occurred. The ball was a back pass, which the keeper could have cleared, but didn't. Instead he chose to try and dribble out and only when he got in trouble did he go to ground and handle it. All 3 criteria for awarding the indirect free kick were met and he simply chose to ignore it which is wrong.

If we were to follow your line of thinking to every scenario when a keeper gets in trouble then there would be no indirect free kicks for keepers who pick the ball up, which would make the law an arse.

Sorry, but this is just another case of a ref making a poor decision in a dangerous area of the field and he shouldn't be vilified for making up his own interpretation of the laws. Unless of course it was just straightforward incompetence and he actually missed what was going on!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ben Foster caught on the ball

Site Map

Sponsors